With all the changes on offense, including how horrible the defense is, the offense should be able to average 25 points per game at the back end of the season.

Is this too much to ask?

I think scoring points could help Kubiak the most, even as horrible as the defense is.

infantrycak

09-26-2006, 07:05 PM

I think scoring points could help Kubiak the most, even as horrible as the defense is.

We have a grand total of 3 punts forced in 3 games. Until the D steps up to the plate, nothing the offense does matters. Yes the O needs to improve as well, but it has to a degree as opposed to the D which has gone from bad to monumentally bad.

hollywood_texan

09-26-2006, 07:16 PM

We have a grand total of 3 punts forced in 3 games. Until the D steps up to the plate, nothing the offense does matters. Yes the O needs to improve as well, but it has to a degree as opposed to the D which has gone from bad to monumentally bad.

I am not talking about winning games, I am talking about making things look a little better.

Agreed though, the defense has to play better. Actually, those guys are a joke!

But, it isn't interesting that our defense was decent a few years back and yet the offense still had problems scoring. It is still a problem and I don't see how it would be different if the defense held teams to less than 25 points in the first three games. Of course, I am taking into consideration the coaching additions, Kubiak and Sherman, then also take into account the additions of Moulds, Putzier, and Flanagen. That is really my point, so much change and still the same problem. The offense isn't really close, and they actually look worse than last year.

Also, even though the defense is a joke, the other teams are kicking off to give us possession after they score, and still nothing happens on offense. The offense is still getting the same amount of possessions if the defense had stopped them. Granted, they are starting on about their own 20.

With all the changes, the offense still seems to be the same.

Grid

09-26-2006, 07:23 PM

You should go look at the time of possession average for each year.. that might give a better indication.

I havent seen the numbers but it seems to me that our offense is doing just fine being at 16 points per game when thier opponent is on the field twice as long as them.

Our defense is the biggest issue.. on both sides of the ball.

ronaldod1

09-26-2006, 07:28 PM

the offensive line isn't any better. The player and coaching personnel additions have enabled the team to make adjustments necessary to marginally combat this huge deficiency, but it's still a major problem. The Texans have never 'owned' the field on offense OR on Defense. That all starts in the trenches. coaching changes and shiny new free agent recievers can't fix the core problem of the team. It's a process. It's gonna take the development of spencer and winston with a legit free agent pickup next year to really make a difference. then i think 25 per game is a little more realistic.

Grid

09-26-2006, 07:30 PM

Oline is alot better. Run blocking isnt there but Carr has had time in the pocket.

TK_Gamer

09-26-2006, 07:36 PM

The first four seasons, the Texans averaged 16.20 points per game.

Here is the break down by year,

2002 13.31
2003 15.94
2004 19.31
2005 16.25

So far in 2006, 16.33 points per game.

With all the changes on offense, including how horrible the defense is, the offense should be able to average 25 points per game at the back end of the season.

Is this too much to ask?

I think scoring points could help Kubiak the most, even as horrible as the defense is.

sorry but when the offense is so far behind they are forced to throw the ball all the time you will never win. as far as the team looking better, I doubt it, the word will still be the texans cant win or the texans are the worst team in the league. you cant even accurately judge an offense that plays constantly from behind. the defense you can judge, because they CAUSED the team to be behind. the normal NFL team scores on about 30% of its drives. against the texans they score on over 50% of their drives. it makes a big difference. washington and indy not only scored. they did it on long time consuming drives that kept our lousy coached defense on the field longer and our improving offense OFF the field.

Vinny

09-26-2006, 07:44 PM

Some teams with rotten defenses have won high scoring shoot outs over the years....I'm still waiting to win our share.

hollywood_texan

09-26-2006, 07:49 PM

I understand the point about our defense, but our offense isn't getting fewer possessions or chances to move the ball because of the poor defense. The other team is still kicking off after they score. The field position is an issue, I totally understand that.

What if the offense popped off one long drive themselves during the second or third quarter every game.

Is that too much to ask?

It seems like we have lowered our expectations on offense because the defense is a joke.

HomeBred_Texan

09-26-2006, 07:52 PM

Some teams with rotten defenses have won high scoring shoot outs over the years....I'm still waiting to win our share.

I would love it if we could do a high scoring shoot out...

Win or lose, it would at least be exciting...

TK_Gamer

09-26-2006, 07:58 PM

I understand the point about our defense, but our offense isn't getting fewer possessions or chances to move the ball because of the poor defense. The other team is still kicking off after they score. The field position is an issue, I totally understand that.

What if the offense popped off one long drive themselves during the second or third quarter every game.

Is that too much to ask?

It seems like we have lowered our expectations on offense because the defense is a joke.

it's called time of possesion and comfort level. the other team is under little pressure (our poor defense /playcalling) our team is getting blitzed every other play. so they convert their 3rd downs and consume 4 to 8 minutes and we go 1 min and a half and give it back to them. they dont need as many chances as we do cuz they score on their drives when we dont. then it just snow balls late in the game when we HAVE to throw the ball to catch up and they can run the ball and drain the clock. thats why you dont want to ever get behind by more than 2 scores. because the other team is under no pressure and you are. as far as expectations. i think if we didnt give up 20 points and 25 mins of possession, our offense would be looking at least adequate.

Vinny

09-26-2006, 08:01 PM

It seems like we have lowered our expectations on offense because the defense is a joke.
Last year was the opposite and we expected the defense to win some games here and there. We didn't roll out too many excuses for them I don't think.

Texan1

09-26-2006, 08:16 PM

Is this too much to ask?

I think scoring points could help Kubiak the most, even as horrible as the defense is.

Not a Mario bash - but this is why I felt this was the year to take Bush. The extra dimension on O would have been a huge plus and would have least made this team interesting to watch through the inevitable rebuilding period ahead.

The D was at least a couple of years away from being respectable – Mario or no Mario.

So why cry? We didn’t draft Bush and it is over and done with. Now we (Texans included) all suffer the painful rebuilding process…

Texans_Chick

09-26-2006, 08:21 PM

Last year was the opposite and we expected the defense to win some games here and there. We didn't roll out too many excuses for them I don't think.

Last year, statistically the defense was worse than the offense.

This year, statistically, the defense is worse than the offense, but is also so much worse than the rest of the league by a huge margin.

This year, statistically, the defense is worse than the offense, but is also so much worse than the rest of the league by a huge margin.
they were long term but that offense was historically bad. We didn't have a lead till the Browns game....for one second....not one lead (if I remember correctly). Look up what week we played the Browns.

infantrycak

09-26-2006, 08:26 PM

Some teams with rotten defenses have won high scoring shoot outs over the years....I'm still waiting to win our share.

Find me a team that won games averaging one forced punt per game. What you are saying is true for bad D's with great O's not historically, monumentally, of epic proportion bad D's with a mediocre at best O. Simple equation--let the other guy score every time they get the ball and the best you can hope for is a tie. No doubt the O needs work--no doubt the D needs more.

hollywood_texan

09-26-2006, 08:28 PM

Last year, statistically the defense was worse than the offense.

This year, statistically, the defense is worse than the offense, but is also so much worse than the rest of the league by a huge margin.

What about the offense and defensive stats for 2004?

The defense played pretty well that year as I remember and the Texans lost a lot of close games.

It seems from this thread, there are lot people that think we can't win games unless the defense holds teams to under 20 points and the offense has a time of possession of more than 30 minutes.

If so, I think it kind of proves my point. The offense needs the defense to get it more chances, and the offense has a problem taking advantage of their chances after a kickoff and starting at the 20.

Vinny

09-26-2006, 08:28 PM

Find me a team that won games averaging one forced punt per game. What you are saying is true for bad D's with great O's not historically, monumentally, of epic proportion bad D's with a mediocre at best O. Simple equation--let the other guy score every time they get the ball and the best you can hope for is a tie. No doubt the O needs work--no doubt the D needs more.

ok, so a shoot-out is asking too much.

infantrycak

09-26-2006, 08:31 PM

ok, so a shoot-out is asking too much.

Hey--I would much prefer us to put up 40 and lose than put up 20 and lose but we aren't going to win until the D looks better than the HS D down the street. It does zero good for the O to put 7 on the board if the D let's the opposing O put 7 on and chew up 8 minutes of clock or lets them score 7 in 52 seconds. Yes the O needs improvement--fine call them a bad O but that makes the D a travesty, a mockery, a friggin joke even in comparison to a bad O.

hollywood_texan

09-26-2006, 08:32 PM

Find me a team that won games averaging one forced punt per game. What you are saying is true for bad D's with great O's not historically, monumentally, of epic proportion bad D's with a mediocre at best O. Simple equation--let the other guy score every time they get the ball and the best you can hope for is a tie. No doubt the O needs work--no doubt the D needs more.

I agree with you, but with all the changes, the offense as a whole should be a bright spot.

My point isn't that we should be winning games, but I think our offense should be playing a lot better considering what it was last year and the changes made in the offseason.

It seems to me, the offense is the same as it ever was while the defense has fallen of the cliff.

Hopefully, that analysis makes sense.

Besides, I am not too confident our offense could stand the pressure of four quarters of a close game. Hopefully, we can get a low scoring game out of the Dolphins and the offense can pass that test.

infantrycak

09-26-2006, 08:37 PM

I agree with you, but with all the changes, the offense as a whole should be a bright spot.

My point isn't that we should be winning games, but I think our offense should be playing a lot better considering what it was last year and the changes made in the offseason.

It seems to me, the offense is the same as it ever was while the defense has fallen of the cliff.

IMO the offense is significantly better than last year--that's like saying a chicken with 10 feathers has significantly more than a chicken with 1 but there is improvement. Carr is about where I expected him--improved but still with huge amounts of work--5-10% of the improvement he needs to make. The running game surprises me in how bad it is. The D is a debacle.

blockhead83

09-26-2006, 08:56 PM

IMO the offense is significantly better than last year--that's like saying a chicken with 10 feathers has significantly more than a chicken with 1 but there is improvement. Carr is about where I expected him--improved but still with huge amounts of work--5-10% of the improvement he needs to make. The running game surprises me in how bad it is. The D is a debacle.

My thoughts fall in line with these. Forget the stats, if you've watched the games you should probably have realized that our offense looks improved from our previous years. Carr looks much better, throwing the ball with confidence, having a better feel for his pocket, and looking downfield instead of at dump offs. He doesn't look great (fumbling snaps and not taking care of the ball when running), but he is obviously better. Our run game was supposed to be our strength, but I think it honestly looked better under Capers at this point. Now, that said, Kubiak has a proven record of getting the most out of his running game, so I have confidence that that'll correct itself. If we had a functioning running game, our offense would be looking pretty good, IMO.

Our defense is beyond pathetic, I have a hard time thinking of something that's more frustrating for me to watch.

utahmark

09-26-2006, 09:06 PM

offense is better defense is worse. its pretty simple really.

The Pencil Neck

09-26-2006, 09:56 PM

What about the offense and defensive stats for 2004?

The defense played pretty well that year as I remember and the Texans lost a lot of close games.

It seems from this thread, there are lot people that think we can't win games unless the defense holds teams to under 20 points and the offense has a time of possession of more than 30 minutes.

If so, I think it kind of proves my point. The offense needs the defense to get it more chances, and the offense has a problem taking advantage of their chances after a kickoff and starting at the 20.

Well, we can win by our defense stepping up and making stops and our offense continuing like it is. OR. We can win by our offense stepping up and scoring TD's on every possession and our D getting one or two stops per game. Right now, I think our offense looks closer to scoring every possession than our D looks to making a bunch of stops.

tsip

09-26-2006, 09:58 PM

What about the offense and defensive stats for 2004?

The defense played pretty well that year as I remember and the Texans lost a lot of close games.

It seems from this thread, there are lot people that think we can't win games unless the defense holds teams to under 20 points and the offense has a time of possession of more than 30 minutes.

If so, I think it kind of proves my point. The offense needs the defense to get it more chances, and the offense has a problem taking advantage of their chances after a kickoff and starting at the 20.

...actually, from a ranking stand point, our highest 'total defense' ranking was our first year

...totals for 2004 would have been near the top of the league if-for some mysterious reason-our offense had not 'gone south' the second half